>I brought up the subject of virtualizing some of our existing single
>function white-box/out of warranty older servers as VMs in a new Win2008
>server (which is now only proving domain controller functions). My boss,
>the I.T. Manager, was against it, saying he didn't want to "put all his
>eggs in one basket" on that one server.
>
> (Our environment is 75 Win XP clients and 10 servers.)
>
> Proposed Win 2008 HyperV Parent Server:
> -Dell PE1950
> -4 GB RAM (looking to add more)
> -big hard drive
>
> Proposed Child Server #1:
> -WSUS server servicing all 75 clients (this is the only function of this
> server)
>
> Proposed Child Server #2:
> -FTP server servicing public internet clients and private LAN clients.
> (this is the only function of this server)
>
> What is the risk to our network, if any, of having the FTP virtualized as
> opposed to having it physical?
> Would a server performing only as domain controller (and all FSMO roles)
> be a good candidate to be a 2008 virtual parent server?
>
> Many thanks!
> Rob
>

>Those systems are probably OK to virtualize given that you have fast enough
>disks (WSUS) can tax the disks at times. Both of those systems should also
>be able run with reasonable RAM. My recommendation would be however to use
>separate hardware for your host and not place it on top of the DC. The
>ability of your users to logon and do there job is probably key to you
>keeping your job. Overloading or having something go wrong with a virtual
>guest could cause this. So, getting a minimal piece of hardware for your DC
>and placing your VM's on the Dell you propose would be my suggestion. I
>would also suggest placing another DC as a guest to give you some
>redundancy.
>

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:13:08 -0400, "Rob McShinsky"
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
>>Those systems are probably OK to virtualize given that you have fast enough
>>disks (WSUS) can tax the disks at times. Both of those systems should also
>>be able run with reasonable RAM. My recommendation would be however to use
>>separate hardware for your host and not place it on top of the DC. The
>>ability of your users to logon and do there job is probably key to you
>>keeping your job. Overloading or having something go wrong with a virtual
>>guest could cause this. So, getting a minimal piece of hardware for your DC
>>and placing your VM's on the Dell you propose would be my suggestion. I
>>would also suggest placing another DC as a guest to give you some
>>redundancy.
>>
> And to add to Rob's advice:
> If you can add a separate hard drive (physical) for each virtual
> machine you are going to use and place each on its own controller on
> the host then by locating the VHD file of each guest on its own host
> disk will significantly speed up the guests.
> Also, the host should run a 64 bit OS and have *LOTS* of RAM so that
> each guest can have a lot each. It also speeds things up and makes the
> environment stable.

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:20:58 +0100, Bo Berglund wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:13:08 -0400, "Rob McShinsky"
>> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>>
>>>Those systems are probably OK to virtualize given that you have fast
>>>enough
>>>disks (WSUS) can tax the disks at times. Both of those systems should
>>>also
>>>be able run with reasonable RAM. My recommendation would be however to
>>>use
>>>separate hardware for your host and not place it on top of the DC. The
>>>ability of your users to logon and do there job is probably key to you
>>>keeping your job. Overloading or having something go wrong with a
>>>virtual
>>>guest could cause this. So, getting a minimal piece of hardware for your
>>>DC
>>>and placing your VM's on the Dell you propose would be my suggestion. I
>>>would also suggest placing another DC as a guest to give you some
>>>redundancy.
>>>
>> And to add to Rob's advice:
>> If you can add a separate hard drive (physical) for each virtual
>> machine you are going to use and place each on its own controller on
>> the host then by locating the VHD file of each guest on its own host
>> disk will significantly speed up the guests.
>> Also, the host should run a 64 bit OS and have *LOTS* of RAM so that
>> each guest can have a lot each. It also speeds things up and makes the
>> environment stable.
>
> And to answer the most important question that isn't being asked, you
> can't
> add the Hyper-V role to a computer that also has the DC role.
>
> --
> Paul Adare
> MVP - Virtual Machines
> http://www.identit.ca
> 10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.